state of tamil nadu

This tag is associated with 4 posts

On 21.07.2011, respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Police passed a detention order against the detenu under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers 2 = Detaining Authority has concluded as under:- “Hence, I am satisfied that the accused Kajamalai Viji @ Vijay is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order and as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. By committing the above described grave crime in a busy locality cum business area, he has created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area in which the occurrence took place and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”= we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 417 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9716 of 2011) Subramanian …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against … Continue reading

Acquitted =Long ago, in England, Lord Justice GODDARD in WOOLMEINGTON Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (1935 AC 462), held that onus is upon the prosecution to prove the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. This has become the core of the Anglo-Saxonic Criminal Jurisprudence. 49. Since then there is no shifting of this primary duty cast upon the prosecution. The Indian Legal System is also wedded to this basic principle of English Criminal law. Even, now this is the position of Criminal law in India except to the extent statutorily excluded. For instance, offences against women (Section 113-A, 113-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872). 50. The necessary corollary is suspicion, however, strong may not take the place of legal proof. A finding of a Criminal Court is acceptable only when it is supported by legal and valid evidence. Dehors that, it deserves rejection lock, stock and barrel.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/01/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR And THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DEVADASS Criminal Appeal (MD) No.394 of 2010 Sanjeevan alias Reghu .. Appellant v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Inspector of Police Puthukadai Police Station Puthukadai Kanyakumari District. .. … Continue reading

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 2 (s)- Workmen- Determination of- Organisation and Control Test- Applicability of- Lifting of veil- Applicability of- Marketing yard of a cooperative society for sale of farmers’ produce- Porters and graders carrying on jobs at the yard- Their services hired directly by farmers and merchants and paid by them- Society: only supervising the work- Held, not workmen. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947- Section 2 (j)- Industry- Meaning of- Farmers’ cooperative society-for marketing their produce- Services only to its members- Platform provided to the farmers and the merchants for sale and purchase of agricultural produce by auction- No control on either farmer or merchants- Commission charged from parties for rendering service- Held, not an industry:. Certain small and economically weak farmers formed a Co-operative Society for sale of their produce. The Society had two big marketing yards where produce were brought by the farmers in trucks and lorries, unloaded, unpacked, graded, weighed, packed into stitched gunny bags and auctioned. For the convenience of the farmers as well as the merchants (who came to the marketing yards to purchase the produce), porters and graders were always available at the yards. The porters did the job of unloading, unpacking, stitching and loading the bags of produce whereas the graders performed the job of grading, weighing and packing the produce. It was open to the farmers as well as the merchants to get the work done either through their own men or to engage the services of the porters and graders. The farmers and the merchants paid the porters and graders directly for the work done by them. The Society also made payment to the porters and workmen on behalf of farmers in case of financial difficulty which was reimbursed to the Society by the workmen. The Society charged commission for its services from its members as well as the merchants. The Society did not maintain any attendance register of the porters and graders and no working hours were fixed or insisted. However, the Society gave gifts to the porters and graders during the festival season. In 1982 the porters and graders claimed permanency in service and other benefits from the Society. As attempts at conciliation failed, in 1984, the State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal was to decide “whether the non-employment of the workmen referred to in the reference (was) justified”. The Industrial Tribunal opined that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The porters and graders thereafter filed writ petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed by the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the porters and graders were also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the porters and graders filed appeals before the Court. Before the Court, the appellant, inter alia, contended that the High Court erred: (i) in not applying the `organisation test’; (ii) in holding that the supervision and control exercised by the Society on the workmen were not on its own behalf but on behalf of its members.

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1351-53 of 2002 PETITIONER: Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt.Society Ltd. RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/2004 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & S.B. Sinha. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J : BACKGROUND FACTS: ‘Nilgiris’ is a hill district in the State of Tamil Nadu. Mettupalayam is a small town … Continue reading

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of summons – Scope – Contract for manufacture and supply of garments for export – Accused were employees of the company acting as certifying agent in the transaction – Complaint by supplier that accused did not pay amount representing value of the garments exported – Summons issued under ss.120B, 409 and 420 IPC – Application under s.482 CrPC. for quashing – Dismissed by High Court – Held: Dispute between parties was civil in nature – Allegations made in FIR did not reveal any misrepresentation or criminal misconduct on part of accused – Accused did not make any representation in their personal capacity and, thus, could not be held vicariously liable – Summons issued to accused-appellants accordingly quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409, 420 and 120B. Pursuant to a contract between the parties, garments were manufactured and supplied by Respondent No.2 for export. The foreign (German) buyer, however, did not accept the garments on the premise that the same were defective and sub-standard. Respondent No. 2 filed complaint alleging that appellants, employees of the company acting as certifying agent in the transaction, did not pay amount representing value of the garments exported. Summons were issued to the appellants under ss.120B, 409 and 420 IPC. Appellants filed application under s.482 CrPC. for quashing of the summons, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Rightly or wrongly, the buyer refused to accept the goods, inter alia, on the premise that the same were defective and sub-standard. Even if it is assumed that the appellant company was assured payment for such supplies, it would be a del credere agent. Its liability is, therefore, a civil liability. The allegations contained in the First Information Report did not reveal that any misrepresentation was made at the time of formation of the contract. The goods were presumably required to meet the requirements of the buyer. Even if the certificate granted by the appellant company was incorrect, an appropriate action against them could have been taken for breach of contract. [Para 9] [1421-D-F] 1.2. Allegations have been made against the appellants in relation to execution of the contract. No case of criminal misconduct on their part has been made out before the formation of the contract. There is nothing to show that the appellants who hold different positions in the appellant- company made any representation in their personal capacities and, thus, they cannot be made vicariously liable only because they are employees of the company. [Para 11] [1422-E-G] 1.3. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. It is also not a case where although a prima facie case had been made out disclosing commission of an offence, the court is called upon to consider the defence of the accused. The First Information Report itself refers to the documents. They can, therefore, be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the allegations made in the complaint petition read as a whole, even if taken to be correct in its entirety, discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. The impugned summons issued to the appellants are accordingly quashed. [Paras 12 and13] [1423-G- C] R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. (2008) 14 SCALE 85, referred to. Case Law Reference: (2008) 14 SCALE 85 referred to Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2089 of 2008. From the final Order dated 2.3.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Cirminal O.P. No. 26498 of 2005. G.V. Rao, P.N. Jha and Devendra Singh for the Appellants. V. Kanagaraj, M.A. Chinnasamy, S. Thananjayan, R. Nedumaran and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2089 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3600 of 2006) Sharon Michael & Ors. … Appellants Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. … Respondents JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellants are before us being aggrieved by and … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,297 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com